Brexit, for once some facts.

[oldgroaner]

This is the point ..at what stage is a booster shot a new innoculation?. I am not sure that the gamble was a good or bad call, ..but it was certainly rash and imprudent. I don't think it is wise to have rash leadership. Again I remain worried about facilitating mutant variants. If I could be assured on that point, and if plenty of vaccine is coming on stream, then the gamble becomes worthwhile.

Let me put this case forward
The number vaccinated so far have not yet really impacted the cases numbers
What has and indeed is only likely to is the Lockdown

It follows that they should have stuck to the lockdown as the main defence, and given the vaccines systematically at the correct interval for maximum success and reduction of new variants

 

[oldgroaner]

Be patient. Your second shot will give you full protection, you aren’t starting again. There are other people who need vaccinating apart from you. Your second jab is some other person’s first and it may save their life.

Typical Socialist, great at giving away other people’s stuff, but not prepared to give up something of his own for the benefit of others.

As usual you are talking nonsense and again as usual simply mouthing right wing propaganda against which real facts can not penetrate.
The lockdown stops the virus, even the government itself has indicated that it affects the most people
"Your second jab is some other person’s first and it may save their life. ."
More likely your delayed second jab will cost you your life, and at no advantage to stopping the appearance of new variants.
Socialists care about other people, preferring a rational approach pragmatic evidence based, they do not masquerade as butch would be hero's as Tory fanboys do.
In the hope of propping up a disastrous campaign run like a gamble in a betting shop with human lives at stake.
There is no science at all to back up your view is there?

 

[oldgroaner]

Here is yet another example of incompetence passed off as glorious pro active action
Rishi Sunak unveils £1.65bn boost for Covid-19 vaccine rollout ahead of Budget
We have to ask why more cash is needed now? why wasn't it more carefully costed and planned? Surely they knew how many would need it right from the start? Sheer incompetence!
They couldn't run a booze up in a brewery

 

[Woosh]

Scottish single jab study:

Vaccine dose 1 (28-34 days) :

The Pfizer's 85% score was based on 18 incidences.
The AZ's 94% score was based on just 2 incidences.

 

[Jesus H Christ]

As usual you are talking nonsense and again as usual simply mouthing right wing propaganda against which real facts can not penetrate.
The lockdown stops the virus, even the government itself has indicated that it affects the most people
"Your second jab is some other person’s first and it may save their life. ."
More likely your delayed second jab will cost you your life, and at no advantage to stopping the appearance of new variants.
Socialists care about other people, preferring a rational approach pragmatic evidence based, they do not masquerade as butch would be hero's as Tory fanboys do.
In the hope of propping up a disastrous campaign run like a gamble in a betting shop with human lives at stake.
There is no science at all to back up your view is there?

It’s a simple equation.

X = The number of vaccinations performed per day. (This is a finite number governed by the number of people available to run the process. It’s very very good by comparison to other nations)

V = the number of people given 84 to 94% protection from serious illness and hospitalisation per day.

At present X = V

You want X = V/2

I say OG = SB (Where SB is Selfish Bastard)

 

[Woosh]

the number of people given 84 to 94% protection from serious illness and hospitalisation per day.

that may be true for one week, week 4 after the injection.
Even then, the basis for that high estimate is so flimsy (based only just 2 incidences for the AZ).
For the rest of the 12 weeks program, the vaccine effect is much lower, in the 60% from week 7 and fading until you get a booster.
This morning, one epidemiologist even suggested a third jab.
No wonder Sunak puts aside some extra money.

If you were in your 40s and 50s, you see the point of the single jab strategy, but if you look at this from the hospital admissions point of view, the at risk group (70+) is the most expensive to look after. Delaying from 6 weeks to 12 weeks will keep a lot more old people in hospital beds compared to a 6 week program.
I can calculate the number for you if you are prepared to seriously look into that.

 

[oyster]

I guarantee brexit...

Seagate UK customer stung by VAT on replacement drive shipped via the Netherlands
Well, Brexit meant Brexit

Chris Mellor Fri 26 Feb 2021 // 11:15 UTC




One of the consequences of Brexit came back to bite a Seagate customer in the UK who was forced to pay import VAT and brokerage fees on a replacement drive still under warranty that was this month shipped from the Netherlands.
https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/26/seagate_uk_customer_charged_vat/

... will be far more expensive than anyone admitted. "a charge of £45.12 including £33.62 in "government charges" and £11.50 "Brokerage charges" on the new drive. "

 

[Suzan]

Let me put this case forward
The number vaccinated so far have not yet really impacted the cases numbers
What has and indeed is only likely to is the Lockdown

It follows that they should have stuck to the lockdown as the main defence, and given the vaccines systematically at the correct interval for maximum success and reduction of new variants

But surely that is a self defeating argument. If people stay in lockdown between jabs (ie following government advice) they still have the bonus of single jab and lockdown to keep infections down.
Lockdown isn't finished earlier by either method but this method saves more hospitalisation and deaths. The date at which all population is fully vaccinated is same by both routes.
Or am I missing something?

 

[Jesus H Christ]

that may be true for one week, week 4 after the injection.
Even then, the basis for that high estimate is so flimsy (based only just 2 incidences for the AZ).
For the rest of the 12 weeks program, the vaccine effect is much lower, in the 60% from week 7 and fading until you get a booster.
This morning, one epidemiologist even suggested a third jab.
No wonder Sunak puts aside some extra money.

If you were in your 40s and 50s, you see the point of the single jab strategy, but if you look at this from the hospital admissions point of view, the at risk group (70+) is the most expensive to look after. Delaying from 6 weeks to 12 weeks will keep a lot more old people in hospital beds compared to a 6 week program.
I can calculate the number for you if you are prepared to seriously look into that.

I’ve heard that a single vaccination shot still gives good protection at 12 weeks (Van-Tam & Whitty). We each must listen to someone and I suppose our differing thoughts on this subject come down to who we choose to listen too. I don’t think either Whitty or Van-Tam are government stooges, they have made that clear.

The rate of vaccination is pretty much fixed at a very high level in this country. The choice is, do we offer 84 to 94% protection against hospitalisation at a rate equal to the rate of vaccination, or do we chop that rate of protecting people in half?

Now some ass-hole will be along to tell you it’s a fascist plot. Yawn.

 

[oldgroaner]

It’s a simple equation.

X = The number of vaccinations performed per day. (This is a finite number governed by the number of people available to run the process. It’s very very good by comparison to other nations)

V = the number of people given 84 to 94% protection from serious illness and hospitalisation per day.

At present X = V

You want X = V/2

I say OG = SB (Where SB is Selfish Bastard)

"V = the number of people given 84 to 94% protection from serious illness and hospitalisation per day."

You do realise that there is no scientific proof of that statement, don't you?
And it most likely that protection will not last till their second jab?
Render it an illusion.

Further what is really making the difference is Lockdown, as there are less cases both severe and mild.
That should be simple enough for you to understand.

What is actually happening is we are risking the millions of jabs already administered reducing in value through a dumb decision to risk people's lives needlessly to convince the gullible like you.

I am not a "Selfish Bastard" I am in fact someone who has the unfortunate habit of not being one of the gullible sheep who prefer not to think things through, and seeks the best solution in the interests of the public, not the Conservative party.

 

[oldgroaner]

But surely that is a self defeating argument. If people stay in lockdown between jabs (ie following government advice) they still have the bonus of single jab and lockdown to keep infections down.
Lockdown isn't finished earlier by either method but this method saves more hospitalisation and deaths. The date at which all population is fully vaccinated is same by both routes.
Or am I missing something?

If they obey the lockdown the Vaccine hasn't got a job to do has it?
The date that all the population is vaccinated is most definitely not the same there will be a two months difference.
Ask yourself this, why has Sunak announced a £1.65 Billion boost to the vaccination program?

Is it that their plan was so poor they had been caught out for stock levels?
Or more likely they too have seen the evidence suggesting it was not a good idea to extend the date between dosages, to that enormous extent?

 

[oldgroaner]

I’ve heard that a single vaccination shot still gives good protection at 12 weeks (Van-Tam & Whitty). We each must listen to someone and I suppose our differing thoughts on this subject come down to who we choose to listen too. I don’t think either Whitty or Van-Tam are government stooges, they have made that clear.

The rate of vaccination is pretty much fixed at a very high level in this country. The choice is, do we offer 84 to 94% protection against hospitalisation at a rate equal to the rate of vaccination, or do we chop that rate of protecting people in half?

Now some ass-hole will be along to tell you it’s a fascist plot. Yawn.

The latest evidence I posted proved that the opinion your favourite sources got it wrong, it wasn't based on evidence any more than yours is

 

[Suzan]

If they obey the lockdown the Vaccine hasn't got a job to do has it?
The date that all the population is vaccinated is most definitely not the same there will be a two months difference.
Ask yourself this, why has Sunak announced a £1.65 Billion boost to the vaccination program?

Is it that their plan was so poor they had been caught out for stock levels?
Or more likely they too have seen the evidence suggesting it was not a good idea to extend the date between dosages, to that enormous extent?

Of course vaccination has a job to do. The long term, suppressing or hopefully stopping next wave.
Can you explain where your two months quicker comes from? We have 48 million people to vaccinate twice. (unless we use Johnson and Johnson which is a single dose)
To my mind getting through 96 million jabs at a given rate makes delay irrelevant to finishing. The delay just means you are vaccinating in a different order.??? Please explain where your two months comes from? (2 months is almost a 20 million jab discrepancy (assuming 2.5 million per week))
The gap between the jabs does not affect finishing date at all. Obviously.
It simply means the longer the gap the more people will have had their first dose at any time between starting and finishing first dose dispensing. Which, in current situation is a good idea. It reduces hospitalisations during the process. It's irrelevant after.

 

[Woosh]

I’ve heard that a single vaccination shot still gives good protection at 12 weeks (Van-Tam & Whitty).

when they said that, they gave lots of caveats to cover themselves.
Just look at the daily figures - 20 millions vaccinated with one jab, practically all those at risk group, and yet, 1112 people hospitalised last Saturday, about same as 12 months ago.
Don't you think that if the vaccine effect is anywhere as effective as 94%, that number would have gone way down?

 

[oldgroaner]

The Exploding Heads@Exploding_Heads



"I'm worried about this Brazilian Covid."

"Yes, Colin. It's meant to be strong."

It's typical Brazil. You think England have got a good thing going, then the Brazilians waltz over here and blow our British virus out of the water."

 

[oyster]

when they said that, they gave lots of caveats to cover themselves.
Just look at the daily figures - 20 millions vaccinated with one jab, practically all those at risk group, and yet, 1112 people hospitalised last Saturday, about same as 12 months ago.
Don't you think that if the vaccine effect is anywhere as effective as 94%, that number would have gone way down?

But it appears we are now dominated by the Kent variant - possibly going towards SA or Brazil or another one.

Without vaccination, the numbers might have risen substantially due to the apparently greater infectivity rates of these variants.

Which makes all these comparisons extremely difficult to evaluate.

 

[Jesus H Christ]

The latest evidence I posted proved that the opinion your favourite sources got it wrong, it wasn't based on evidence any more than yours is

You have proved FA. You have quoted an alternative opinion, which you are free to do of course, but you have proven nothing.

You think protection drops to a low level at 13 weeks, I don’t. I’m in favour of giving people 84-94% protection from hospitalisation at twice the rate that you want to see. That’s all there is to say.

 

[oldgroaner]

Of course vaccination has a job to do. The long term, suppressing or hopefully stopping next wave.
Can you explain where your two months quicker comes from? We have 48 million people to vaccinate twice. (unless we use Johnson and Johnson which is a single dose)
To my mind getting through 96 million jabs at a given rate makes delay irrelevant to finishing. The delay just means you are vaccinating in a different order.??? Please explain where your two months comes from? (2 months is almost a 20 million jab discrepancy (assuming 2.5 million per week))
The gap between the jabs does not affect finishing date at all. Obviously.

Really? going from a single month between jabs to three doesn't incur a two months delay?

 

[oldgroaner]

You have proved FA. You have quoted an alternative opinion, which you are free to do of course, but you have proven nothing.

You think protection drops to a low level at 13 weeks, I don’t. I’m in favour of giving people 84-94% protection from hospitalisation at twice the rate that you want to see. That’s all there is to say.

No I did not, I posted the actual test information charts, clearly you don't bother to read my posts

 

[Suzan]

Really? going from a single month between jabs to three doesn't incur a two months delay?

Of course it doesn't. Not to finishing all the jabs, which is what you were talking about.
Don't change the subject.
You were saying this regime finishes earlier to replace lockdown. It doesn't. Both regimes finish exactly same time.
Please read my post.